Rates of women who are opting for preventive mastectomies, such as Angeline Jolie, have increased by an estimated 50 percent in recent years, experts say. But many doctors are puzzled because the operation doesn't carry a 100 percent guarantee, it's major surgery -- and women have other options, from a once-a-day pill to careful monitoring.

An Australian state Supreme Court ruled Friday that a nursing home in the west coast city of Perth must respect the 49-year-old patient’s decision to starve to death.

His case adds to international arguments among euthanasia advocates, religious groups, lawyers and ethicists about where the state’s duty to preserve life ends.

“I’m happy that I won my right to die,” the former stockbroker and mountaineer told reporters from his nursing home bed where he is fed by a tube.

Rossiter claimed an Australian legal precedent, saying now “similar quadriplegics can choose whether they want to live.”

Legal gray areaThe case in Western Australia state sheds light on a gray area in Australian law: patients have a right to refuse lifesaving treatment but helping another to commit suicide is a crime punishable by life in prison.

The nursing home sought a court ruling on its legal culpability before agreeing to Rossiter’s repeated requests to stop feeding him.

Comparable cases in other countries have generated heated national debate.

In the United States, comatose Terri Schiavo died in 2005 after her husband prevailed over her family in an eight-year court battle to remove her life supporting feeding tube.

Courts repeatedly blocked the efforts of her parents, Congress, Gov. Jeb Bush and his older brother, President George W. Bush, to resume her feedings.

Last week, Britain’s top court ordered the government to draw up rules for when it will and won’t prosecute assisted suicide.

Dozens of Britons have killed themselves in the past decade in clinics in Switzerland, where assisted suicide is legal, but no one has been charged under British law with helping them travel there.

Rossiter told his one-day court hearing Friday that he was prepared to fly to Switzerland to take a fatal drug cocktail, but that the Swiss government has been known to hold up cases like his with red tape.

Expert: No precedent setAn expert on Australian health law and ethics, Thomas Faunce, a professor at both the Australian National University’s law and medical schools, told The Associated Press that Rossiter’s case had been judged on its own merits and did not set a clear precedent.

“The judge made a determination that there was nothing that could be done to improve this person’s quality of life either in terms of psychiatric treatment or mobility,” he added.

Peter O’Meara, state president of the Right to Life Association, said he was considering launching a legal challenge to the ruling.

“We know that from our discussion with quadriplegics who are in a far worse situation than him — they were saying that if he got proper stimulus, he could change his mind,” O’Meara said.

“If it does set a precedent, we would be very much concerned,” he added.

In court, the judge said Rossiter, who broke his spine in 2004 in a road accident and was left a spastic quadriplegic after a fall last year, clearly had a right to direct — and refuse — his treatment.